kivivuori

If you have an opportunity to test various lenses, make sure that you will use 2-3 different film backs. Simply because lenses are good or excellent but film backs may vary or film pressure plates need adjustment.

".... digital where it is impossible to compare the size of the real life object with the size of the image..." You know exactly the size of the sensor which simply means that nothing changes from 35 mm film if you use camera with FF-senor. If you use Nikon, Canon, Sony DX (APS-C) or other maller formats cameras and use the same lens you just have to change fron sensor distance accordingly to get 1:1 magnification. See sensor details Diagonal (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm) Area (mm²) Stops (area) Crop factor here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

Much better than I thought. I´m using it with D5300 (24 MP, no anti-aliasing filter).

I`ve used Leica Q which also is a "pocket size" FF-camera but with outstanding 28mm fixed lens. It actually looks like a pocket camera which is extremely useful when you`re shooting in metro, bars, restaurants, late in the evenings, etc. Nobody pays attention what you`re doing :)

I wrote my humble opinion. Nothing more, nothing less... And nothing to do with your earlier comments. BR Esa

I like this. This is modern, easy to use, very straightforward and first of all now members can send bigger images.

I love my IIIC (big C). Wonderful Rodenstock f:2/50mm Retina Heligon C lens and large viewfinder with three view frames. It`s bright and easy to use also with spectacles.

<p>My vote goes for 50mm f/2 K (Nov 1974 - 1977) and same lens AI-version (Mar 1977 - Jan 1979).<br />Those lenses have charcater :)<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori <br />Finland</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry to say but if you really find progress you must use digital cameras instead of scanners or use drum scanners. There is no really significant progress until you`ll step another level...</p>

<p>I have few older Nikkor-lenses and I prefer Nikkor 50mm f/2 (K) and Ai versions (Nov 1974 - 1977 & Mar 1977 - Jan 1979)<br /><br />Nr<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>

<p>Hi,<br /><br />To me those examples look like "T-Max 1600" than T-max 100...<br /><br />I´m convinced that you should try drum scanning 8000 dpi or Imagon at least once to see the real difference.<br /><br />Best regards,<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>

<p>I`m just wondering how you can separate two black lines from each other unless there is some color between them ;)<br /><br />It´s obvious that one "line" consist two lines. Therefore I prefer <strong>lp / mm</strong>.<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori</p>

<p>I prefer 50 mm lens in vertical position. You have to take more pictures but you`ll get also more forground compared to horizontal position. <br /><br />It`s also good to remember that the nodal point can be found in front of the lens in some cases.</p>

<p><strong>Leica M9</strong> viewfinder magnification is 0.68x (not 0,91x).</p>

<p><br /> <strong>Sony A7 RII EVF specifications:</strong><br /> EVF: 1.3cm (0.5-inch) 2.4M-dot XGA color OLED,<br /> 100% coverage, 0.78x magnification, -4.0 to +3.0 diopter,<br /> Eyepoint 23mm from the eyepiece lens/18.5mm from the eyepiece frame at -1 m-1<br /> (CIPA standard), eye sensor<br /><br />Note:<br />2,359,296 dots (786,432 pixels)<br /><br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa</p> <p> </p>

<p>The highest resolution EVF to date has 1280 x 960 pixels RGB = 3,68 MP. Aspect ratio: 4:3. I believe that the physical size of that sensor in actually very small ( < 0,5").<br /><br />It is truly excellent but ocular should be larger for the people like me who use glasses. The best optical viewfinders have still an edge compared to EVF:s.<br /><br />It´s not a question about resolution or refresh rate, but more like the construction and size of the ocular and high eye-point (which makes the physical size of the viewfinder larger).<br /><br />BR<br /><br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>

<p>I really hope that Nikon has studied carefully features found in Leica Q and how they were executed.<br /><br /> They should have because in real life the Q is so good.</p>

<p>Acros 100 is definitely THE best choice<strong> if you want</strong> to use medium/slow film. Its extremely sharp, fine tonality and it`s not troubled by reciprocity failure. But you just can`t push it up to ISO 3200!<br /><br />See more: http://www.fujifilmusa.com/shared/bin/NeopanAcros100.pdf<br /><br />If you use MF or LF you could also use Kodak Tri-X or Ilford HP5+ films. They both work very well at ISO 1600. I´ve pushed Ilford HP5 up to ASA 12800.<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland<br /><br /><br />Photo: Thunderbird HP5 12800 ASA © Esa Kivivuori.jpg<br />(Canon F1, FD 24mm /2.8 SSC, hand held)</p> <p> </p><div></div>

<p>Sorry, tried to send too large file. Unfortunately files must be so small... :(<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa<br /><br />(Photo: Helsinki, Katajanokka around 1971-72, Tri-X ASA 1600)</p><div></div>

<p>I think there are also several other reasons why "old" (which one of them?) Tri-X look is difficult to achieve. Millions of photos were taken varius circumstances, exposing film according to "ASA-something" and also guite often developed very fast with warm developers.<br />Negatives were quite often copied to grade 4-5 glossy prints.<br /><br /><br />Therefore I don`t believe that solution is using Rodinal with huge, coarse grain. I´d rather use ISO 800-1600 and D-76 (stock). <br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland<br /><br /><br />(Photo: Helsinki, Katajanokka around 1971-72, Tri-X ASA 1600)<br /><br /></p>

<p><br /><br />I agree 100% with Chris Walker. Period.<br /><br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori</p>

<p>I do agree with Robin Smith and Rodeo Joe. There`s no point having MF unless you´re doing at least part of the job yourself (developing your black & white and/or colour negatives). <br /><br />I prefer square format and that`s why a 6x6 MF gives me more useful negative area compared to 35 mm frame (max. 24x24 mm).<br /><br />I also like relatively short DoF of MF lenses. After all it´s not always the question of sharpness or resolution. To me its more important how the subject itself pops out from the foreground/background<br /><br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland<br /><br /> /><br /></p>

<p>I think it depends what you`re trying get out from your negatives or slides. If you want to have an excellent scan from carefully exposed and developed TMAX 100 negative and really want to get out everything there might be, you`ll need a 8000 ppi drum scan.<br /><br />Having said that...<br /><br /> I also believe that in 99% of cases 4000 ppi is definitely high enough. But much more important than extra high dpi is the dynamics of the scanner - especially when you`re scanning Kodachromes.<br /><br />Nowadays I like Nikon D5200 body, reversed EL-Nikkor 50 mm f/2.8 N + Heliopan 216 set-up ring (52/40,5mm) with Nikon BR-2A Lens Reversing Ring. Small, sturdy & fast combo with > 4000 ppi resolution. No moving parts like bellows between the body and the lens.<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland<br /><br />https://www.flickr.com/photos/esakivivuori/<br /><br /></p>

<p>I think the problem is not having good enough lenses (expensive), but I know that in 99,99% cases it`s very difficult to capture 100 lp/mm (equals 7200 x 4800 pix in 24x36 sensor). You have to have a strudy tripod, no AA-filter in front of the sensor and optimal conditions.</p>

<p>FF-sensor makes a huge difference for my needs.<br /><br />I prefer square format and ff-sensor gives more than twice the sensor area compared to APS-C sensor (576 mm² vs 246,5 mm²).<br /><br />Also the diagonal (max. view of field) of the square format is around 78% compared to full frame - which is closer to the max. view of field of FF-sensor when using 35 mm lens.<br /><br />Square format still leaves me 16 MP sensor area :)<br /><br />BR<br /><br />Esa Kivivuori<br />Finland</p>